Thursday, July 28, 2011

Executive Summary: Sweden received an overall score of 34.5 percent for electoral fairness. The score means that Sweden's constitutional and legislative basis for its democracy is bordering on significantly more unfair than fair. Paradoxically, the shortcoming of Sweden's electoral system is the significant emphasis on political freedom, at the expense of political equality and electoral fairness. Swedish major media and broadcasters have no restrictions on their political content, and there are no laws and regulations on electoral finance. Consequently, media access and exposure and electoral finances are the dominant unfair features of the Swedish electoral system, and despite proportional distribution of public electoral subsidies and proportional allocation of parliamentary seats.

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

On July 26th, a six-person FDA audit team audited electoral fairness in Sweden. After a two hour session, the audit team gave Sweden a failing score of 34.5 percent. Although Sweden is very progressive in the proportional aspects of its electoral system and has fair and progressive distribution of state electoral subsidies, these elements of fairness and others are offset by extreme unfairness in Sweden's laws and regulations on the media's political content and electoral finance.

Executive Summary: Azerbaijan received an overall failing score of 25 percent for electoral fairness. The score means that Azerbaijan's constitutional and legislative basis for democracy is significantly more unfair than fair. Although there are elements of fairness in Azerbaijan's electoral legislation such as free air time and print space, and lottery mechanism to determine print spaces, this fairness is overshadowed by unfair restrictions on political content and electoral finances laws which favor significantly wealthy citizens, candidates, and parties. Under Azerbaijan's current electoral legislation, small and new political parties are at a severe disadvantage against large parties.

Monday, July 25, 2011

Executive Summary: Iran received an overall score of 0 percent for electoral fairness. The score means that Iran's constitutional and legislative basis for democracy is completely unfair. FDA auditors found no overall elements of electoral fairness in Iran. Through severe state controls on political content, parties, and candidates, and with strict and severe enforcement, the Iranian system is authoritarian within a theocratic framework. The will of the Iranian people is replaced by the will of Islam and the Islamic Republic of Iran and its constitution. Citizens who oppose the Iranian state are restricted severely and face severe consequences including imprisonment and the death penalty. In the FDA's opinion, for Iran to move forward, the Iranian state needs to unite itself with the will of the Iranian people, or continue to face instability and disunity, and resulting reduction in individual and national harmony, productivity, and security.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Below is a link to the Andrew Berwick's manifesto. Apparently, Berwick is extremely anti-Muslim and anti-progressive political movements such as the Norwegian Labor Party. Also, apparently Berwick felt alienated by the Norwegian political establishment and mainstream media.

On August 2nd, the FDA will conduct a Norwegian electoral fairness audit.

France received an exceptional electoral fairness score of 91.75 percent. (A score of 50 percent is the minimum passing grade, and 100 percent is the maximum grade.) In the candidate and party influence audit section, FDA auditors could not find any unfairness, and thereby awarded France a 100 percent score for this section.

In terms of the FDA's global electoral fairness audit results, France overtook Venezuela in the number one spot with an overall score of 91.75 percent and Venezuela with a 85 percent overall score. Regardless both France and Venezuela have exceptional basis to their democracies.

Monday, July 18, 2011

FDA auditors gave Bahrain an overall score of 0 percent for electoral fairnress. Though Bahrain's electoral laws have elements of fairness, they are canceled out by the kingdom's severe restrictions on political societies and political content, and the powerlessness of the elected Council of Deputies over the kingdom's executive branch.

Based on this important part where you cite GISXXI say the liberal ideology of political democracy could only be made by the Bolivarian revolution and its commitment to socialism of the XXI Century are right as well which egalitarian democracy to guarantee economic, social and cultural features of political democracy as part of their model and practice. Democracy is not only an ethical political system which we should aspire to have a civilized society that can be considered as such. It is not only a system of coexistence based on freedom and respect.

I propose the shortest way possible, try to see the relationship between the degree of democracy in a society and daily living conditions of citizens. The quality of the political system affects the quality of life of ordinary people. The more and better democracy, better living conditions, even happier is the population of a country. This, again, may seem obvious to many of my colleagues, but it is not, repeat, for many citizens. To realize this, simply discuss in forums unrelated to the ideas, revolutionary, just talking to friends, relatives, neighbors, fellow-workers, is why we must continue to strengthen the Bolivarian revolution and supporting GISXXI to continue their studies every day give us tools for further analysis in this revolution.

Lords liberal idealism is totally opposed to the Bolivarian revolution, liberalism is freedom, progress, respect for individual, private property, no re-election to public office, state control NO, DO NOT enter idealism in education, such as ETC ETC view is opposed to the Bolivarian revolution that Chavez and Fidel Castro himself said that is equal to communism. So this article is Artoo wanting to confuse the Liberal Democrats with the totalitarianism of the Bolivarian revolution. More respect for the Liberal Democrats that we never jalamecates more of a Bolivarian revolution.

Liberal Democrat Hello, thank you for your comment, in theory, liberalism is everything you say, but maximizing the value of private property makes that real political practice violated all principles, the logic of property is the tendency to concentration and from there his idealized freedom is reduced to the most disgraceful dictatorship of privilege, I invite you to read the article "Economy of 1%, 1% by 1%," Joseph Stiglitz Nobel Prize in economics 2001. That article describes the economic model frighteningly for the few that is consolidated in the United States imagine http://ve.globedia.com/stiglitz-economia-del-1-por-el-1-para-el-1- liberal ideal that you do not want that to Venezuela, right?

Liberal Democrat friend, finally I would say that historically the ideas of political liberalism has only been made by social choices, the Socialists are nurses of the real practices of freedom and beyond that established a critique and transformation conditions of inequality and anthropology of selfishness touted by economic liberalism, the grand launch of post-war Europe after the project was linked to socialist society, it is now when the economic liberalism of Europe takes the direction that the project begins to plunge them into deeper crisis. Just as in Venezuela, the Bolivarian socialist option and that has made structural changes to overcome inequality in just 12 years.

And to end liberal Democrat, in the political process as the re-election, which issues such as andidemocrática, remember that the heart of democracy is control and reversibility and the elected in Venezuela can vote and choose, as well can revoke the mandate, you have political freedom and respect for life, no opponent is massacred in the streets for his politics, the opposite of the previous cycles of fake democracy. The revocation was a farce in the fourth republic, imagine 40 years of bipartisanship. The revocation Was a farce in the fourth republic, imagine 40 years of bipartisanship. Anyway, the robustness of the political and democratic processes have been evaluated by external actors are not biased, but around this you can give a reasonable dialogue and listen to arguments, but you can not talk around matrices of opinion manipulated or speeches emotionalize no arguments. Thanks for your comments respectful and serious.

Participatory democracy can not be passive point. It is necessary to bring the revolutionary evengelio those corners darkened by violence, drugs and self-inflicted exclusion. And we must do now: it is the only time this group is disconnected from the revolution that was born just for them.
The unfairness of the opposition is not merely the result (and also shown) of the arrogant attitude of the wealthy economic sector and its partnership with the media and the empire. Not only is unfortunate: it is criminally dangerous, it opens the door to invasions and fratricide in a particularly aggressive phase of capitalism vulgar and just slows down to making arguments "legal" before attacking.
The vote is a good shelter, but votes are needed for this to remain so.
How do we prevent the disloyal opposition becomes government, if we let him away with using illegal weapons against us?

When Franco Munini in his commentary speaks of the "arrogance of the wealthy economic sector," we think it opens as a reflection on the unfairness of the opposition is directly proportional to the type of bourgeoisie that is set in Venezuela, which is a bourgeois rentier violates the basic principles of capitalist enterprise. Its very disrespectful to the basic rules of democracy (coups, no rule of law) is the disrespect for the rules of bourgeois enterprise focused on competition, on the contrary economic behavior is the hoarding, speculation, usury. Bourgeoisie is always looking for the shortcut and below, is a bourgeois trap closest to the mafia and the logic of accumulation.

Friday, July 15, 2011

The FDA's mission is to advance the fairness and transparency of democratic processes wherever elections occur. The FDA is a non-partisan organization guided by objectivity, soundness, and transparency.

The FDA's Venezuela Report is based on an audit of the constitutional and legislative basis for Venezuelan democracy. We acknowledge, as stated in the report, that the application of laws and the public’s response to them would impact, either positive or negative, the laws themselves. Also, a country's constitution and electoral laws are part of the reality of its democracy.

We regret if you do not agree with our findings. If we have misinterpreted the Venezuelan constitution or electoral laws in terms of our concrete, literal interpretations, please inform us.

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Some good points mixed in with denial and lacks of understanding of the importance of the constitutional and
legislative basis for democracy.... It is good at least people are discussing the report, and thereby improving their understanding of democracy.

Saturday, July 9, 2011

Article makes some interesting points about how major media networks discredit, unfairly, the Chavez government. The FDA is waiting and prepared to deal any unfair criticism directed at its Venezuela report (while
being open to constructive criticism).

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Executive Summary: Russia received a failing overall score of 35% for electoral fairness. This score means that there are major deficiencies in most areas of Russia's electoral legislation. In particular, the severe unfairness of Russia's electoral finance laws canceled out many instances of electoral fairness in Russia's electoral legislation. Also, Russia's 90% score for equality of political content could not overcome the negative impact of Russia's electoral finance laws in all other areas of the FDA audit.

Friday, July 1, 2011

FDA Director of Marketing, Mr. Aurangzeb Qureshi, writes about the idea of a US Spring, and how the Arab world deserves praise for raising up.... Would the America establishment be more tolerant than the Syrian establishment? Why haven't Americans as a whole risen up against their own social and political injustices?

FDA Grade Scale

A+ Exceptional candidate and/or party (overall flawless and original policies and vision, impeccable incumbency record if applicable, exceptional competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 84.99% and less than 100.1%)

A Outstanding candidate and/or party (overall very high standard for policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 79.99% and less than 85%)

B+ Very good candidate and/or party (overall high standard for policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 74.99% and less than 80%)

C+ Unacceptable candidate and/or party (few deficiencies and/or major deficiencies in some of the following: policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 64.99% and less than 70%)

C Unacceptable candidate and/or party (several deficiencies and/or major deficiencies in some of the following: policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 59.99% and less than 65%)

D+ Unacceptable candidate and/or party (a lot of deficiencies and/or major deficiencies in some of the following: policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 54.99% and less than 60%)

D Unacceptable candidate and/or party (many deficiencies and/or major deficiencies in some of the following: policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 49.99% and less than 55%)

F Unacceptable candidate and/or party (numerous major deficiencies in most if not all of the following: policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade less than 50%)

FDA Links

Facebook Like Button

Foundation for Democratic Advancement

The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) is an international independent, non-partisan democracy organization. The FDA’s mission is
to measure, study, and communicate the impact of government processes on a free and democratic society.
Overall, the FDA works
1. to ensure that people become more knowledgeable about the outcomes of government processes and can then make decisions that are more informed;
2. to get people involved in monitoring government processes at all levels of government and in providing sound, practical, and effective suggestions. (For more information on the FDA visit: www.democracychange.org)